Donald Trump May Be a Dangerous Buffoon, But He's No Hitler

Americans worried about a future Hitler should oppose abusive executive power no matter who is president.

"Is this what Germany looked like in 1933?" Joe Scarborough asked on Morning Joe this week.

No. Not at all.

Though many in my family were exterminated during the Holocaust—including one of my grandfathers, who died trying to make his way home from Mauthausen after years of forced labor—I'm not completely offended by an occasional gratuitous Nazi analogy. But as much as I hate to intrude on our week of national indignation, Donald Trump's idiotic, undoable and probably unconstitutional immigration proposal (if we can call it that) is not comparable to the genocide of 6 million Jews. Trump is not comparable to Adolf Hitler. The Art of the Deal is not Mein Kampf. You can save your histrionic riffs of Martin Niemoller, for now. Trump's statist suggestions and nativist populism, though often reprehensible in their own special way, are not nearly so morally corrupt as the policies of National Socialism or Stalinism or even the theocracies that litter the Middle East right now.

Unless political demonstrations have been banned and something comparable to the Reichstag fire is about to go down, Trump is not going to be Führer. Marinus van der Lubbe may not have burned down the German Parliament, but Islamic terrorists actually did gun down a bunch of Americans last week. Yet storm troopers didn't smash Muslim businesses in a fury of collective punishment; a concentration camp for political opponents of Trump was not established this year; there's been no decree banning Muslims from practicing law and civil service jobs; and there have been no prohibitions on Islamic dietary laws. Not even Trump has claimed to want to institute any of these things—and other than a few fringy Nazi types on Twitter, I've never seen anyone claim to want to institute these things. All of them, of course, would be unconstitutional.

I realize that many liberals like to portray Muslims as an oppressed class, much like the Jews of prewar Germany. But this historical fearmongering is not backed by evidence. Rarely are religious hate crimes directed at Muslims. (Over 60 percent of them are still aimed at Jews, according to government statistics.) As of now, Muslims have not lost a single right as Americans (other than the ones we all lose). Calling for an end to Muslim immigration is more comparable to the Chinese Immigration and the Chinese Exclusion Acts (though this has nothing to do with economic protectionism) than it is to the Nuremberg Laws. Muslim Americans enjoy more individual liberty in the United States than they would in any Islamic nation.

Many Americans feel that they're under attack. Many blame all Muslims, but some won't blame Islam at all. Both are preposterous and dangerous positions. Trump's crass populism—the crassiest—feeds off this fear. It's an ugly overreaction to President Barack Obama's underreaction regarding terrorism, though there is one incredibly important distinction: Both of these men have proposed actions that intrude on the Constitution this week—with the president proposing to use an arbitrary no-fly list to take due process away from potential gun owners—but only one will ever have been president.

Trump is never going to make a decision for the American people. Neither major party will support his run for the presidency, should he somehow win the Republican nomination, which is highly doubtful. But if you don't buy all that and if you're truly concerned that Trump is going to turn America into the next Nazi Germany, there is an answer: You should become a vocal opponent of abusive executive power no matter who is president. That includes the one we have right now. Because it's the precedents we set today that would make it easier for Trump to have his own Schutzstaffel.

COPYRIGHT 2015 CREATORS.COM

Comments

[nicmart]

Wait until the fanatics figure a way to link Muslims to drug trafficking, which is the American equivalent to the poisoning of wells.

[MSimon]

Why don't we deny them that profit opportunity by legalizing. Shrink the Black Markets.

[Hank Phillips]

Why not? Anheuser-Busch struggled mightily to paint all hippies as killer weed Manson cultists. Mohammedans don't drink alcohol, and clearly are high on either religion or dope, right?

[bassjoe]

Dude, that is so early to mid-2000s...

[EndTheGOP]

Surely David Harsanyl is not your actual name because any person with even half the intelligence of a normal person would be too embarrassed to put this piece of crap out under his real name. (I guess that's why only a couple of dozen readers even bothered to respond huh?)

I WANT YOUR REAL NAME BUSTER!

You don't get to throw this lame-ass crap here at Reason without claiming ownership.

[Cloudbuster]

"EndTheGOP" is a funny name. Your parents must have been very politically active.

[GordonG]

Typical. Check out samharris.org for a diagnosis of your dis-ease.

[EndTheGOP]

Cloudbuster & Gordon -- Do either of you have a disagreement with anything I said? Do either of you have the cojones to state that disagreement so I can then destroy any lame argument you come up with?

I didn't think so.

[Steve Bumgardner]

Until you show the intestinal fortitude to use your own name you have no ethical standing from which you can honorably snipe at him about his. Of course you have succinctly expressed why you use such a vacuous pseudonym, I'll give you that.

His essay seems factually accurate. Trump, while unquestionably a buffoon is no Hitler. Only a profoundly ignorant or dishonorable person would argue otherwise. Of course that doesn't mean those who would stood so low as to vote for a criminal like Hillary Clinton won't. Or for that matter the fools who think Ted "fast track" Cruz is a conservative. None the less, it will be a mindless and entirely inaccurate description.

Trump is at the top of the trash pile right now because of the mouth breathers who watch reality tv. If he wins the nomination the Republican party will stab him in the back just as they did Ron Paul, though for somewhat different reasons.

I am unable to more directly respond to your little stompie foot rant because you didn't write anything of actual meaning.

[EndTheGOP]

Steve Bum -- Before I waste my precious time destroying the crap coming out of your keystrokes, please inform the readers what crime Hillary Clinton was convicted of to make her a criminal.

[Steve Bumgardner]

Clinton has publicly acknowledged using a private server for her governmental functions in clear violation of the law. Thus far at least 1000 documents with some security level have been recovered. The fact that she will not be indicted is in itself an indictment of the worst president of my lifetime. No whiney sniveling excuse you can make will change any of that. No honorable person would stoop to voting for those abominable creatures.

As far as your childish handling of my name goes, all I can say is you must be a load of laughs on the grade school playground. I will not cower behind anonymity as you do. Your grandiose puffery fails to impress, particularly in light of the vacuousness of your comments.

Once you write something worth reading I'll evaluate its value. So far you've come up with less than nothing. Your comments deserve to be treated as no more than dog droppings to be scraped off my shoe.

[EndTheGOP]

So many words for such little content.

Your unspoken apology for being unable to support the "criminal like Hillary Clinton" comment is acknowledged. Just the facts Stevie.

Now, are you afraid I just might do my "little stompie foot rant" on your intellect if you should happen to grow a pair and tell me whom YOU think should be our next president? Don't worry, I'll take it easy on you

[Steve Bumgardner]

Oh childish one, my choice for the next president is not at issue in this thread. That is no more nor less than your pathetic attempt to change the subject.

Clinton is in fact a criminal. The armed robber is no less a criminal for not being adjudicated. Clinton has publicly acknowledged the act. The act is a violation of the law. The apology should be yours, though I doubt you have the honor to follow through on that glaring need.

The point at issue is Trump as Nazi. Those who have some knowledge of history know he isn't even close. Of course that leaves you out.

Mr Hersanyi explained it well. You have said nothing at all to refute his comments. Puff and bluster all you want, you've written nothing but inane prattle that only serves to destroy your own credibility, graciously assuming you ever had any.

[EndTheGOP]

PART 1

Steve ? You say, " Oh childish one, my choice for the next president is not at issue in this thread. That is no more nor less than your pathetic attempt to change the subject."

So using your logic, by you inserting Hillary Clinton into the discussion, that was "your pathetic attempt to change the subject." You have much difficulty grasping logic, don't you oh childish one?

Although I can't blame you for not wanting to tell me who you want for our next president. You know I would shred him into a million pieces, bringing you to tears.

You continue your drool with, "Clinton is in fact a criminal. The armed robber is no less a criminal for not being adjudicated."

I'm sorry Steve. I'm not sure what country you live in but I live in the USA. Here a person is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. Again, that logic thing. The sad thing is I don't think that's a quality you can learn. You almost have to be born with the ability to see logic. Sorry.

To be continued

[EndTheGOP]

PART 2

And your drooling continues. "The point at issue is Trump as Nazi." and "Mr Hersanyi explained it well."

To begin with, Harsanyi is using nothing more than a cheap writing device by making that overused false comparison of stating "somebody said SO AND SO is Hitler!" (Yawn. This has been done a zillion times before). By Harsanyi's own attribution Joe Scarborough never questioned Trump as being a Nazi. Harsanyi used this cheap device to trash Trump to appease the Reason staff to carry on their anti-Trump agenda. Harsanyi never explained anything let alone explained it well. He's a hack! Surely even you can see this Steve (Is Harsanyi your brother-in-law or something?)

Again, all of those words and you're not saying anything! That's why no one's reading you. Keep it pithy dude. And try to work on your logic, if that's even possible.

[Steve Bumgardner]

'Tell me who you want to vote for and I'll destroy them', is distraction.

'Trump is a buffoon but he isn't a Nazi, Hillary is a criminal,' is a comparison. The point of which is that both the Republicans and the Democrats are gullible.

Innocent until proven guilty is a slogan, perhaps an ideal, but it must be set aside when the subject confesses publicly.

Clinton publicly admitted to using her own mail server, though she argued first that it was all personal. When work related emails were recovered she argued that nothing sensitive went through her server. We now know that sensitive material did go through her server

The laws governing correspondence by government officials say use of an other than official server alone is enough to constitute a crime.

Since I am not on her jury, and she confessed in public, I need not reserve judgment. She confessed. I believe her. Guilty in this court of public opinion.

By the way, you've let a comparison distract you. Do try to focus.

Continuing vacuous ad hominem nonsense dismissed.

Quite a few people online have compared Trump to Hitler and his followers to Nazis, so an essay on that point is hardly out of line, no matter how it might offend your delicate sensitivities.

Like it or not,Trump is a buffoon but not a Nazi. Mr Hersanyi's points were well made. You've destroyed nothing and nobody, with the possible exception of yourself.

[EndTheGOP]

PART 1

Stevie ? OK, my work is done here. You're just repeating your illogical, boring, egotistical, winded rants again, all of which I have refuted multiple times previously. But you know the work you have cut out for you.

Your assignment for the next 6 months is as follows:

You know you need to work on your logic. Good luck with that. It's probably going to be your most difficult hurdle.
Your long rants where you say nothing, they're got to go. Keep it pithy dude. We've been over this many times previously.

Something we haven't discussed is that super blown ego of yours. You need to cut that by at least half. It's as if you're writing just to hear yourself speak?and that's exactly what you are doing, because no one's reading you.

I know what you're thinking, 'Well what about that humongous ego of yours Mr. EndTheGOP?' And you would be exactly correct. (I probably have the biggest ego on the planet besides my Super Hero Donald Trump, but that's another story). The difference is I combine my large ego with a near-perfect if not perfect sense of logic, which your lack of is your Achilles heel. Also I use as few words as possible to get my point across, you, just the opposite.

To be continued.

[EndTheGOP]

PART 2

I would suggest you print out a copy of our discussions on this thread and carry it around in your shirt pocket. Maybe take it out 4 or 5 times a day, spend a half hour each session studying our conversations, and then put it back in your shirt pocket. By keeping it in your shirt pocket it will be a constant reminder of the work you need to do. (I would even suggest you get a pocket protector to keep it in. It won't get wrinkled that way, but that's just me.)

All right. That's it for now. I have many other people to help here. You have a long and winding road ahead but with constant work I'm sure you can improve. I do offer private tutoring but it's expensive, $300 an hour. I've never had any complaints though. Every student has been 100% satisfied. Something you may want to consider if you can afford it.

Or, just read me and learn. And it's FREE! You'll probably find me refuting all of the anti-Trump articles posted by the Reason staff here. Someone has to destroy that country-ending agenda of theirs, and who better than me?

OK, that's it. I'm out of here?other people to help. Study hard and check back in with me in about 6 months and we'll review your progress. Best of luck.

Gotta go.

I must be off.

[Steve Bumgardner]

Oh, you are most certainly off.

Thus far you have refuted nothing. I'm still waiting to be destroyed. So far all you've done is project your own rather pathetic issues.

Face it. Trump is in fact a blowhard. Look the word up. Every speech he makes is an example.

His actions are those of an egocentric buffoon. He's been this way for years. Look at that silly tv show. He, and he alone, votes people off of the island. His bankrupt casinos had double doors so he could get his head inside the building.

None the less, Trump is not Hitler and his followers aren't even close to Nazis.

I have little doubt that Trump can be better than Clinton, assuming he can keep from using abuses like eminent domain to get his way. Of course my neighbor's dog would be better than Clinton, so that's a pretty low standard.

The real point of it all is up at the top of the page: Americans should oppose abusive executive power no matter who is in office.

I await your hysterical response. If you can find the time.

[Trollificus]

"I must be off."

At last, after innumerable useless words and unwarranted self-promotion, some actual content from you we can all agree on.

[EndTheGOP]

Troll -- Okay. We know what you agree with me on.

Now is there anything intelligent you disagree with me on that you are able to actually put into words?

I didn't think so. Be gone.

[EndTheGOP]

Bum ? Since you obviously have difficulty making logical comparisons, allow me to educate you. An article receiving top billing on Reason's home page is NOT comparable to a reader making a comment on said article. Once Reason decides to give my comments the proper placement they deserve, at the top of their home page, I will proudly place my name on my comments. (Why should I give Reason free publicity for using my name, a name 95% of the US public would recognize, so they can garner more readers?)

By the way, YOU may want to consider using a "vacuous pseudonym" yourself. The only take-away from your name is "bum."

Please tell the readers who you think should be the next president and then sit back and watch me destroy him right in front of your very eyes!

I am a very busy person. I will attempt to respond to your laughable comments as time allows.

Read me and learn!

[SQRLSY One]

You sound like a self-inflated, pompous, narcissistic asshole to me... Are you perhaps The Donald Himself? Let us all bow and pray, then! PLEASE "educate" me!

[EndTheGOP]

SQRLSY -- Is there anything you disagree with me on? Do you have the balls to actually state that disagreement and then watch me destroy your argument?

I didn't think so.

[SQRLSY One]

"Steve Bum -- Before I waste my precious time destroying the crap coming out of your keystrokes, please inform the readers what crime Hillary Clinton was convicted of to make her a criminal."

I disagree that one has to prove some-one was "convicted" before one is a criminal. The NAZI regime never convicted Hitler of a single crime, not even a speeding ticket, yet he was guilty of being a mass-murdering asshole. Also I disagree that your time is very precious at all, since you are wasting your time, trying to convince freedom-loving people that arrogant ass-hole-ism should be bowed down to, and prayed to. We're not going to do it, period, full stop. Stop wasting your "precious" time!

[EndTheGOP]

SQRLSY -- So what what you're telling us is, it is perfectly fine to make any assumption you want, without any proof at all, and just because you believe it, it's true. Gotcha.

Oh what it must be like to live in that space you call a mind.

FYI -- Hitler WAS "convicted" of treason and spent 9 months in prison where he wrote Mein Kampf.

So you are correct, Hitler was a criminal. A convicted criminal.

[SQRLSY One]

So then, if I can provide you evidence that Hillary-Bob was convicted of a speeding ticket 20 years before she violated the laws of the land, by trafficking in USA-secrets via her private home email server... Which she cannot and will not be convicted of, because of politics, just as Hitler was never convicted by the NAZIs of being a mass-murdering asshole, because of politics... Will you THEN concede that Hillary is a "criminal"?

EndThe GOP... So what what you're telling us is, it is perfectly fine to just go off and spew nonsense at everyone, and expect them to bow down and pray to you? Come on, go ahead and rip off your disguise, and tell us that you are "The Donald"... I, for one, welcome the New Protector of Der Vaterlant! WHERE do I get my "Make America Hate Again" baseball cap, in Your Honor?

[EndTheGOP]

SQRLSY -- Jesus H. Christ. And I thought Steve Bum used too many words. I'm going to keep this simple for you.

In the USA a person is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY! Got that?

And you drool on: "EndThe GOP... So what what you're telling us is, it is perfectly fine to just go off and spew nonsense at everyone, and expect them to bow down and pray to you?"

Tell me what "nonsense" I'm spewing and I'll answer you.

[SQRLSY One]

So if I was convicted of speeding, 30 years ago, it is fair to call me a criminal... If I broke into your house, stole or burned everything, killed a few folks, a few months ago, but was never caught or convicted... Then I am "innocent" and a non-criminal. OK, I got that...

You win EVERY argument in your twisted mind, and convince NO ONE of anything (other than the observable fact that you are a raging, cannot-be-reasoned-with, asshole. Do yourself a favor... Go see a shrink, your Mom, your friends (if you have any), or your Scienfoology priest, ANYONE with ANY understanding of how to "play well with others", and get some advice and help! You've got anger and stupid issues you need to deal with...

[EndTheGOP]

SQRLSY One -- I like you! You make very little sense but you bring a smile to my face.

Let's get down to what we're REALLY arguing about on this thread. I tried to engage Stevie boy in this discussion but the man's kind of thick. It's that ego of his combined with his lack of logic and his BORING rants.

Trump is the ONLY person at this time in history who can save our country. None of the other clowns on the stage with him can even figure how to get a word in, that's how much he has out-smarted ALL of them. None of them have a clue.

More importantly, Trump is the only one who has a chance of beating Hillary, and I'm not 100% convinced he can do that. But if Clinton wins, it's game over for our country. She will probably bring the senate with her and where she will really do her damage is with her 2 or 3 nominations to the supreme, which she'll probably get. If she gets that, the socialists win and capitalism will be dead for the next 75 years minimum. We'll all be living the lives of the 1950 Russians.

Forget the immigration BS and the Trump is a racist noise and all of the other petty crap people are trying to pin on Trump. I want Trump because he is the only one with a chance to beat Hillary. And that's all that matters!

I wish I had more time to chat with you but I've already spent too much time on this thread as it is. Catch up with me on another one of Reason's anti-Trump threads. I'll be there.

[SQRLSY One]

PS, it was not the NAZI regime that convicted him of this crime, was my central point (which you missed; it was plainly written). The Powers That Be ***NEVER*** convict themselves of ANYTHING! People with common sense know this innately... You must be missing a few hundred million neurons that are "normal" to the human brain, MeThinks...

[EndTheGOP]

SQRLSY -- I never said it was the Nazi regime that convicted him.

I NEVER miss anything!

[Hank Phillips]

Only a profoundly ignorant or dishonorable person would argue otherwise.

This use of the Argument from Intimidation identifies the scribbler as an infiltrator from the Religious Reich.

[Steve Bumgardner]

Mr Hersanyi's essay shows that it is not historically accurate, as would any study of WWII Germany, therefore anyone making the argument must be historically ignorant.

Or, if the arguer knows that it is historically inaccurate but presses the argument anyway, the arguer shows himself to be dishonest and therefore dishonorable.

How have I mischaracterized this? Certainly you can make the argument, but it discredits itself in one of those two ways.

Note: many logical fallacies are factually accurate. Make the argument if you wish, but know in advance that it fails.

"Religious Reich"? Seriously?

It must be cold and lonely under your bridge.

[Red Rocks Rockin]

Show us on the doll where Daddy molested you.

[Real American]

no need to link Muslims to drug trafficking. the links to terrorism are already apparent to anyone who's been paying attention.

[Hank Phillips]

to anyone who's been paying attention.

Though true, at least since the Cleveland Administration, the riposte is nonetheless framed as an argument from intimidation.

[Nick W B]

Certainly Americans are in a better situation than Germans in the Weimar Republic, and it's quite likely that Trump won't be the Republican nominee let alone president (anyone who points to the polls as evidence otherwise doesn't know the difference between a majority and a plurality). So yes, we have learned something from that horrendous event three quarters of a century ago. Congratulations, I hope you all feel proud of yourselves.
But... Trump's policies do certainly combine nationalism with a form of socialism in which a central authority runs the economy. He is therefore a national socialist by definition. And while he may not be proposing something as horrible as the Holocaust that's a pretty low standard to hold a politician to. Personally I don't want even a glimpse of the society he would move us to.

[JWatts]

"But... Trump's policies do certainly combine nationalism with a form of socialism in which a central authority runs the economy. He is therefore a national socialist by definition. "

That's a fine example of some pants shitting.

[Hank Phillips]

It also has the ring of truth, but it still does not identify any difference between Trump and Hillary's party, or between Trump and anyone else in Trump's current party for that matter. National Socialism is government control of trade and production (as in communism), albeit without complete nationalization of all the means of production. To Europeans, the NSDAP meant they got to have all the violence and cruelty of communism and still hang on to the traditional methods of oppression and torture traditional to Catholicism and Protestantism.

[ant1sthenes]

Trump isn't there to win anything. His entire campaign is basically funded by the media, and he serves their goals. Hillary is a POS and would be DOA in a fair election. Trump is there to make asshats the face of the GOP, and, when the time comes, deny the GOP the asshat vote by running third party. The name says it all, like Wesley Mouch or Hiro Protagonist or Linda Stasi or other unsubtly named characters.

[Ron]

are you saying we aren't already under a form of national socialism now? there is not much left that the government does not control 100% of. I think guns are the only thing left and they are working to get rid of that last barrier.

[Chipper Morning Wood]

Yes we are. We are under corporatism. And we all know Mussolini though corporatism was a better name than fascism for his ideals.

[dajjal]

You drastically underestimate both Trump and his supporters. People really aren't very different here than they were in prewar Germany. I could easily see Trump calling for various restrictions on Muslim rights and his followers eagerly support them. That's the part you're missing. Just talk to these people - they are spoiling for a fight. The main difference is that Weimar Germany prosecuted many Nazi leaders for their anti-Semitic manifestos, which served to radicalize them. We don't have that here so it is much easier to see what is going on. And of course, we learned lessons from history. But don't think for a minute that there aren't millions of good little kiddies out there with itchy trigger fingers. They are easy to identify - both from their gun licenses and their tendency to insult and bully.

[Red Rocks Rockin]

But don't think for a minute that there aren't millions of good little kiddies out there with itchy trigger fingers. They are easy to identify - both from their gun licenses and their tendency to insult and bully.

RADICALZ WITH GUNZ!! Fuckin' please. You really think you're in greater danger from Jethro and Billy Bob than you are agents of the state?

[dajjal]

"I was mesmerized by Trump. I was just following orders."

No I am not in greater danger from you. In fact, I know you'll protect me. (Thanks in advance.) However some people are in grave danger from Trumpism. And they've done nothing wrong other than being accused of housing a 'radical extremist' in your caliphate.

[Red Rocks Rockin]

"I was mesmerized by Trump. I was just following orders."

Damn, that strawman got torched!

No I am not in greater danger from you. In fact, I know you'll protect me. (Thanks in advance.)

Why bother protecting someone that won't make an effort to protect themselves? Show some initiative.

However some people are in grave danger from Trumpism.

Citation needed.

[JWatts]

"They are easy to identify - both from their gun licenses and their tendency to insult and bully."

So, are you saying we should stop issuing them license or maybe take their guns away? Maybe we should add a few lines to the Social Contract.

[MSimon]

millions of good little kiddies out there with itchy trigger fingers.

And they already have millions of widely distributed guns.

So who is doing all the killing? Who is punching way above their weight when it comes to murder? Blacks..

[dajjal]

Haha yeah they are also easy to identify by their blatant fake racism. They will denigrate any ethnic/racial/religious/sex/disability/political class group as long as they think they can 'incite' hatred against them to provoke a war. There is nothing new here and Trump is just playing on ancient rivalries. He will fail but I'm just explaining why - thanks for the opportunity btw.

[Hank Phillips]

Ever notice how looters seek to eliminate the guns that are pointing away from voters? They never seem to notice guns they order pointed at the very folks they claim elected them by secret ballot. So... how are looter politicians different from Saracen terrorists?

[Aloysious]

...good little kiddies out there with itchy trigger fingers. They are easy to identify - both from their gun licenses and their tendency to insult and bully.

The police?

[Bill Dalasio]

But don't think for a minute that there aren't millions of good little kiddies out there with itchy trigger fingers. They are easy to identify - both from their gun licenses and their tendency to insult and bully.

Let me see if I can explain something to you. Conservatives in America have been estimated to have about 200 million guns. And roughly 12 trillion rounds of ammunition. If they were violent, you'd know it.

[Ron]

"Weimar Germany prosecuted many Nazi leaders for their anti-Semitic manifestos, which served to radicalize them."
Isn't that what the media and many on both the right and left are doing to Trump right now, prosecuting him on TV and many mayors talking of limiting his rights. Won't that also just radicalize his followers as well? looks like a double edge sword.

[dajjal]

When I say 'prosecuting' I mean legally. Criticism on TV is completely different - and it is well deserved. I don't understand why I'm the only person on a LIBERTARIAN message board who will point out this simple and common cognitive fallacy. But I plan to find out.

[bflat879]

I'm amazed how people completely missed the whole point of this commentary. All of you people, afraid of a Donald Trump, are willing to let Obama rule by phone and pen. All of you people, afraid of Donald Trump, are willing to elect representatives who won't do their jobs, i.e. pass budgets and keep the Executive Branch in check. All of you people, afraid of a Donald Trump, are willing to live in a country with no borders, no rules for people coming in, politicians spending money we don't have, and an executive branch re-writing laws.

All of these things will get worse, if we don't elect representatives who take their responsibilities seriously. Germany got to where they were, not because Hitler made it that way, but because the Reichstag didn't do their jobs. There was a narrow period of time where Germans could have stopped Hitler. Instead, they allowed him to take more and more power. I'm much more worried about President "I've got a pen and I've got a phone" than I am Donald Trump.

[dajjal]

I'm much more worried about the Crumputzis.

[Hank Phillips]

Nobody can be everyone without me, and I am not ever going to hand a secret ballot to the Inner Party or the Outer Party.

[Wizard4169]

Exactly what I told my right-wing friends back when Dubya was in office: Even if you trust the guy currently in office with this kind of power, what about the guy after him? In politics, what comes around, goes around. Ergo, it's not a good idea to trust government with any power you wouldn't want to see in the hands of your worst enemy.

[Hank Phillips]

...much less the worst enemy of your old buddy Freedom.

[MSimon]

Donald just says out loud what a lot of people are thinking. The latest: could better vetting of people coming to the US have prevented San Berdoo?

How many terrorist acts does it take before people (en mass) start muttering, "Send them all home."

[Hank Phillips]

"How many terrorist acts does it take???"
Not nearly enough, by the looks of it.

[Real American]

if our government and elites who run both parties were responsible with immigration, then Trump's candidacy wouldn't exist. that the government, regardless of which party controls it, continually is derelict in its duty to enforce our immigration laws is a scandal that is completely ignored by the elite media. Regular people are tired of it. Trump's candidacy just fills that leadership vacuum.

[What's the frequency, Kenneth?]

If The State was responsible at all, libertarianism would not exist.

[Hank Phillips]

Another Republican. Observe that this one claims "elites run" the parties. Observably, looters run the Inner and Outer Party, and ideals funneled through intellectuals run the parties behind the parties. The CPUSA pumps ideas into the Dems and the Prohibition Party pumps ideas into the GOP and Tea Party both. Mystical altruism underpinning all of these ideologies justifies the initiation of force. The differences are a matter of emphasis.

[bflat879]

Never said send them home. I'm much more worried about all the refugees the Democrats want to let into this country with little or no vetting. Trump has only said we should stop this until we figure out how to weed out the terrorists. It's time to have an honest conversation about this. Until now, we haven't had one which is why the polls are in Trumps favor.

[Hank Phillips]

Who let her in here? Why has Reason suddenly allowed a writer to mention Trump without fangs, horns, furry thighs or cloven hooves? (checks betting odds...) Aha! Bookies in England and Ireland now favor the candidate who was actually raised in the same faith as Adolf Hitler, founder of the National Socialist Worker's Party of Germany. The candidate Reason refrained from attacking hates all things libertarian, beginning with fellow birth-forcer Rand. Good work guys. Let this be a lesson to any republican who says he likes libertarians or thinks we have good ideas.

[Stephdumas]

A bit off-topic, I saw these articles on Takimag and Unz about Trump and Marine LePen.
http://www.takimag.com/article.....k_buchanan
http://www.unz.com/isteve/my-n.....elections/

[Stephdumas]

And I couldn't resist to mention some Downfall parody clips.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajqWJEVKMLc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DByC0Y2qETE

[Hank Phillips]

On Marine, the looter press reports "The rightward shift in French politics..."
Rightward in European languages means toward Christian National Socialism and away from bureau-worshipping Soviet Socialism. There has not been a libertarian in office in Europe since Tomas Masaryk of Czechoslovakia. Their journalists and governments have for nearly a century lived inside the Socialism circle of a Venn Diagram.

[John Sizemore]

To me the problem is not so much that Trump resembles Hitler as it is that Trump's brainless fascist appeal to "do whatever it takes to make America great again" appeals to a shockingly large number of otherwise reasonable Americans. Today's voters probably would not support an openly racist candidate, but racism was just one of the Nazis' destructive policies. If they'll support someone who clearly could not care less about the law or the actual duties of the job he's seeking then how far are they from voting for someone even worse?

[Ron]

I love how everyone compares Trump supporters to Nazi's and their racism while we have a standing president who was elected by using racism to divid a nation just like Hitler did.

[Unicorn Abattoir]

Yes, but while the current president is a socialist, nobody in their right mind would suggest that he's a nationalist. So it's all good, right?

[Suicidy]

Obama is not a nationalist. He is a counter-tribalist.

[bflat879]

So it's OK for people to resemble Hitler as long as you agree with them. President Obama is the present problem and we have few in Congress willing to stop him from going around them to make law. If you don't think that's a problem, I would suggest you read the "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich".

[Hank Phillips]

I would suggest you read the actual newspaper articles written by their Fuehrer and NSDAP bigwigs. Goebbels' 1929 novel "Michael" could easily pass for a christian socialist novel today by changing some dates and place names. Bavaria is using copyright to keep wartime NSDAP ideology secret, but Lane and "Rupp's Nazi Ideology before 1933" compendium of first-person exhortation shows nationalsocialism leans heavily on the belief that altruism is a Mendelian inherited trait, like blue eyes. To make the world safe for altruism they built extermination camps, for they envisioned individualism, which they call selfishness, as another inherited trait in those days before the identification of DNA. By simply defining altruism as good they sidestep the responsibility of explaining why or by what standard they established its goodness.

[GregMax]

Is anyone counting the number of shitty Trump-hating, Trump-dismissing contributions here at Reason? It truly is becoming laughable.

There must be a style book online for them - demonize something a guy says, then declare he isn't going to be elected, finally and circuitously agree with the basic point Trump makes.

[Suicidy]

So many that it makes me want to vote for Trump. Just to rub the idiot's noses in it. And I really don't like Trump as a candidate. But I hate weak minded, pseudo intellectual pussies who trash every single candidate. Including Rand Paul. And whine incessantly about open borders at any cost, including spending billions to bring Muslims from halfway around the world. Then act like ISIS will go away if we pretend they aren't there.

It gets old. So at least voting for Trump sticks it to them.

[Hank Phillips]

I lost count, but the smears ramped up when Trump told Nick on camera he likes libertarians and thinks we have good ideas. That wrecked my assumption that he is another decoy subsidized by Nixon-era campaign laws to force taxpayers to fund "both" looter parties and thereby drown the LP in the cesspools of media presstitution. The Reason Foundation pretending Trump is somehow worse than the professional vampire soft machine, is puzzling, but emits a strong odor of dishonesty. When Trump bails, he might assume Reason speaks for us and not contribute a penny to libertarian candidates--other than by helping the antiabortion prohibitionists get beaten again.

[Real American]

the left calling people Hitler and Nazis is not new. Their Naziism, fascism, racism and sexism charges (they make rather than making cogent arguments) have lost most of their power or meaning.

[dajjal]

Actually the charges against Obama of being 'fascist' and 'demagogue' have turned people like Krauthammer into 'the boy who cried wolf' and now the Republican party is the victim of its own propaganda as the real thing is at their doorstep.

[bflat879]

The problem is the Republicans are directly responsible for Obama doing what he does. The Democrats protected Obama from anything serious, but Republicans refused to force them to take the necessary votes.

[What's the frequency, Kenneth?]

@Real Scotsman - I'm pretty tired of polemic arguments that make right wingers look as stupid as left wingers and vice-versa. How about some original thought? As dejjal points out, each side frequently does exactly what it accuses the other side of doing.

[Suicidy]

It's funny to see how many libertarians here act like hysterical hyperbolic assholes in exactly the same way progtards do, over Trump.

[ModernPaine]

FALSE Not Unconstitutional - Donald Trump's idiotic, undoable and probably unconstitutional immigration proposal (if we can call it that) is not comparable to the genocide of 6 million Jews

8 US Code 1182 (Section a. Number 10, Paragraph f.)
Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, the president may, by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

[What's the frequency, Kenneth?]

Since when does broadly written law, interpreted so vaguely as to attack a religion, supersede the US Constitution?

[Suicidy]

How does it supersede the constitution?

[trig]

Sorry, genocidal tendencies aside you have to be trying really hard to not see parallels with Hitler.

[Mark6]

Which are?

[What's the frequency, Kenneth?]

Special rules for people of a particular religion, collectivizing them as one evil group. Do realize that Muslim extremists, and ISIS in particular, are recognized enemies of the greater Muslim population!

[pronomian]

The title shows little of what the man is doing. A rudimentary search on google of his book The Art of The Deal shows that what he is doing is straight out of his basic points. He cannot, and knows he cannot evict 11 million hispanics, he knows he will not be able to restrict all muslims coming into this county. What he does know, and is doing is setting out a ridiculous proposal knowing that it will have to be compromised down in order to get a "deal" from congress. (Unlike the current idiot in charge, I don't think he will try to make law and adjust law as he sees fit). He has spoken on the horrible deal with Iran and how he has negotiated deals and our current politicos are stupid (the latter which I fully agree).

His points are:
Think big, Protect the downside and the upside will take care of itself, Maximize your options, Know your market, Use your leverage, Enhance your location, Get the word out, Fight back, Deliver the goods, Contain the costs, Have fun.

We have had politicians running this country for how many years now? How has that worked for us? Other than a true libertarian, maybe it is time of the business man to be in charge.

[pronomian]

1 Think big:

"If you're satisfied knowing that you can comfortably make a deal that doesn't require much effort, then you're not thinking big enough."

2 Protect the downside and the upside will take care of itself:

"Get into deals that you can afford to recover from if things go poorly, and know when the opportunity cost for making a small deal is lower than had you not made a deal at all." (on this point I see his outlandish claims, go big, knowing they will "widdle" you down to a deal everyone can live with)

3 Maximize your options:

"It's necessary to be flexible...I always come up with at least a half dozen approaches to making it work, because anything can happen, even to the best-laid plans."

4 Know your market:

"He says that he's made it a habit to collect himself as many opinions as possible about a potential...deal to see how it will affect the area and who it will be catering to."

5 Use your leverage:

"The only way you're going to make the deal you want, he says, is if you're coming from a position of strength and can convince the other side that you have something they need. (On this note, it's comprehensive immigration reform and protecting the american people, agree or not, I see this as the point he uses for his, eviction of 11 million, a wall and restricting muslims)

Trump says he's not afraid to blur reality to utilize leverage."

[pronomian]

6 Enhance your location:

"...his main point is that rather than overpay for something that is already established, you should consider cheaper alternatives that have the potential to be molded to your taste."

7 Get the word out:

"Trump says that he's always embraced a healthy dose of sensationalism and controversy to pique the media's interest.

"I play to people's fantasies," he writes. "People may not always think big themselves, but they can still get very excited by those who do. That's why a little hyperbole never hurts. People want to believe that something is the biggest and the greatest and the most spectacular."

8 Fight back:

"Trump says that he prefers to be cooperative and positive, but that sometimes it's necessary to be confrontational when the other side is treating him unfairly or trying to take advantage of him.

"...he writes. "...my experience is that if you're fighting for something you believe in ? even if it means alienating some people along the way ? things usually work out for the best in the end."

[pronomian]

9 Deliver the goods:

"You can't con people, at least not for long," Trump writes. "You can create excitement, you can do wonderful promotion and get all kinds of press, and you can throw in a little hyperbole. But if you can't deliver the goods, people will eventually catch on." (This I believe is the main reason people are coming out against the "establishment" of politicos. Need not look at the history but just the last mid terms, how many promises were made that were not kept, or even blamed on not having a rep presidente?)

10 Contain the costs:

"Trump explains that his father taught him to never pay a penny more than you should for something, since pennies can easily turn into dollars." (manipulating and using the press plays into this never pay more than you should for something, in this case exposure)

11 Have fun:

"Successful deal-making should be about the thrill of winning and accomplishing something, not solely for making money, Trump says." (he says he's having fun. I think for so many politicos it is about the money and benefits."

He may not be right of this country but he's no buffoon

[dajjal]

I love that you did a doctrinal analysis even if it's a bit pedantic for my taste. In my experience the answers are usually right there if one only bothers to look.

[pronomian]

I was just trying to make the point that he is doing in his campaign what he does in his deal making, I find this interesting.

[darrenlobo]

Trump is no Hitler but he does resemble Bruening, Papen, & Schleicher, the German chancellors who preceded Hitler. They were increasingly ruling by decree invoking Article 48 of the Weimar CONstitution. This is how they paved the way for Nazism. Are our elected dictators doing the same?

[pronomian]

Wow. We don't have the same type of government Germany had that gave rise to naziism. If it is true that trump is campaigning according to his basic points of making a deal, he knows he cannot do some of the things people are so worried about, he is just setting the bar high knowing it will have to be lowered. You don't sell your car, or house, telling people what you are willing to accept, you add to the price knowing they will middle you down to close to what you want, they think they win, you know if you do or not. I understand the fear knowing we have a president now that not only changes law to suit his needs but tries to make law, and a pussy congress that lets him get away with it, and many want to elect a member of that congress to be president. I wonder how that will work for us.

[What's the frequency, Kenneth?]

Hello! McFly!

I believe the reason for the reference is that Hitler suggested that the Jews had to be controlled, as a group. The grave forms of that "control" came later. Libertarians are familiar with the cycle of government in which stupid ideas are suggested, don't work, and are "improved" over time. You can bet that if/when Trumps idea is implemented, it will fail spectacularly. It will then be progressively improved. Niemoller illustrates a form of this quite well, actually.

As for the Reichstag fire, 9/11 has been rightly compared to it.

I could summarize your naive spiel as "It hasn't happened yet, so it won't happen." I'm sure there was plenty of denial in Germany before it was too late. In my opinion, there's been too much denial of what "our government" has been doing as it ratchets up the generic assaults on liberty in the name of terrorism. Incidentally, I predicted THAT on 9/11.

"It's an ugly overreaction to President Barack Obama's underreaction regarding terrorism..." Together with assuming your audience is conservative and calling people who don't think as you "liberal," I'm not even sure what this spew is doing on a libertarian web site. Terrorism is DESIGNED to do exactly what you apparently want--respond as only a STATE would.

[What's the frequency, Kenneth?]

Further:

"Neither major party will support his run for the presidency..." You're not paying attention to the latest polls. Populist fear, which is common amongst Republicans (and I suspect amongst many unspeaking Democrats and independents), is driving his numbers UP.

Please don't trot out the implicit American exceptionalism attitude that "it can't happen here." That's exactly how the extreme reaction to 9/11 was tolerated--by broad denial.

[EscherEnigma]

To be fair, the latest polls make the idea of a brokered Republican convention sound possible? (I'm not sure about probable), which would probably sink a GOP Trump nomination.

And even if Trump wins the nomination, most general election polls have him losing to Sanders or Clinton.

So while I don't think anyone should undersell Trump, I'm also not convinced he's worth getting my dander up over.
________
?Sure, he's got the plurality of GOP support, but he's missing the majority and most of the GOP primaries aren't winner-takes-all for delegates. And polls/surveys indicate that Trump doesn't have that much room for upward growth on his numbers. That all may be wrong and he'll sail into the convention with an overwhelming number of delegates, but from my vantage point I wouldn't discount seeing the first brokered GOP convention in my lifetime next summer.

[What's the frequency, Kenneth?]

Thanks for that. Actually, I'm thinking the best possible outcome is the breaking of the GOP. I've seen enough different brands of conservatism that couldn't be confused with libertarianism run their party. Should that happen, the best hope will be a similar breaking of the Democratic party between the Hillary types and true socialists. Neither party has any principles, which dashes any hope for anything resembling the rule of law to return. No, it's not that I love any form of the state, but a "principled" form is better than what we have today.

[pronomian]

I agree with the first sentence. Hopefully out of the ashes of a destroyed republican party will rise a true libertarian party. If it is true that most millennials are leaning libertarian, now is a good time for that to happen.

[Pulseguy]

If it were Jeb Bush running with his numbers everyone would be saying JB has it hands down. Trump is crushing everyone. To have 30% in a field of ten is tough to do. And, he's consistent.

The big thing though is every time he says something outrageous I think 'well that's it, he's done' and then he jumps in the polls.

He is Teflon.

The person who is most powerful wins in the US. Hillary? Bernie? Trump or Christie? Trump or Bush? Trump or Carly? Trump or Carson? Trump or Cruz? Only the last one could be a stumbling block for Trump.

[EscherEnigma]

That he only has 30% isn't the problem. The problem is that there doesn't appear to be much room for growth.

It's the same general election problem that Clinton has, there are a *lot* of people that have very unfavorable (and very hard to move) views already. Trumps problem is that exists *within* the party as well as outside of it.

[Shootist]

And Trump is still superior to any of the candidates supported by the Permanent Bi-Partisan Ruling Coalition.

[Hank Phillips]

Prolly true, but that ain't saying much.

[josh]

this is the kind of article hitler would've written.

[Glarus]

You know who else was no Hitler...

[woodNfish]

This article is such pure bullshit that I am seriously considering putting Reasons email in my spam folder.

[Suicidy]

These hit prices are part of why I didn't donate to Reason. Knowing Richman, Chapman, and that one bitch with the Indian sounding name would get some of the money was the other part.

[Hank Phillips]

Next big deposit I'm going to subscribe to Libertarian Republic and renew LP membership.

[Win Bear]

I realize that many liberals like to portray Muslims as an oppressed class, much like the Jews of prewar Germany.

The Jews of prewar Germany may have been an "oppressed class" in some ways, but unlike Muslims in the West, they were more economically successful and educated than average Germans. The Nazis talked about Jews as bankers, capitalists, and "parasites". If you replace "the 1%" with "the Jews" in the rhetoric of US progressives, you get something pretty close to what the Nazis were saying.

[bflat879]

On Monday, the words of Donald Trump were distorted to mean he wanted to keep all Muslims out of the country. What he said, and there is an important distinction, was he wanted to halt allowing any Muslim refugees to the country until Congress gets a handle on it. There's a big distinction in the 2 memes.

Now, by Friday, many are beginning to wake up to the reality that Obama wants to let in thousands of people basically unvetted and hope they won't terrorize the country before he leaves office. Many are saying what Trump has said, although they're saying it less directly. Newt Gingrich was highly critical on Monday, by Thursday he was saying we needed to have Congress look over how these refugees are being vetted and make sure we increase the requirements to weed out the terrorists. The fact that 60% of the refugees are males in their 20's should be a wake-up call for anyone who cares.

If the Democrats want to say we no longer have a country, shouldn't protect our borders, and shouldn't be at all concerned that radical Islam want to take our scalp, fine. However, I believe they should be held responsible for forcing the rest of us to worry about where the next terrorist attack is going to come from.

[ThomasD]

Something lost in all the bed wetting over Trump's bluster is that Obama wants to deny actual Constitutional rights based upon the appearance of your name on a particular government list. Even more, a state governor is trying to follow through on the idea.

Maybe someone should ask the both of them if it would be appropriate to block anyone on those lists from voting, because last I checked voting was not even specifically included in the Bill of Rights.

[lehnne]

He's right, the Donald has not governed. All prognostications about his potential for tyranny are conjecture. The real issue is coming to grips with the reality that over the last several decades the Federal Government has degenerated into organized crime that has no intention of ceding any of its power.

[pronomian]

The threat of a brokered convention is proof of that, and it is that which should worry people more than a trump in office who will have to run his proposals through congress (unless of course he goes by way of obama).

[HPB]

Let me get this straight: Several terrorist attacks, ZERO immigration enforcement, no visa monitoring and all you folks are getting mad at Donald Trump and calling him names.

[Hank Phillips]

Weird, isn't it? It's as if Reason had been co-opted by the Geezer Oligarchy Protectorate to help pick off non-machine outsiders.

[Hi there!]

It's absolutely true to me the more pressing concern are these new attacks on the second amendment led by the current potus...nevertheless, a party front-runner calling for (insert silly proposed assault on the bor here, there are several) deserves our derision and ridicule, no? People act as if Donald has a working model for keeping the country safer or something. He does not, and we should ridicule and lambast his proposals thus far for being either outright ridiculous or so morally and constitutionally objectionable as to invite the comparison in the first place.

[Rockabilly]

Donald Trump: Hillary Clinton 'killed hundreds of thousands of people with her stupidity'

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/.....47972.html

[Carter Mitchell]

Agree that even at this low point, a Trump America would not be as bad as those Middle East theocracies, like Saudi Arabia, Israel, Qatar, etc. But that's a pretty low bar; we should aim higher.

[4thaugust1932]

Since 1971 OPEC is selling crude oil exclusively in US$, starting the friction between Islamic and Western;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrocurrency != https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_currency